Eternity

Originally posted by black beetle
So, according to Webster, motion is
a: an act, process, or instance of changing place : MOVEMENT b: an active or functioning state or condition <set the divorce proceedings in motion>.
And movement is
a (1): the act or process of moving; especially: change of place or position or posture (2): a particular instance or manner of moving.

You said tha the observer universe. Hence, time the way you define it, is always associated with matter/ energy.

only from our perspective. this is not a limiting factor for time, it's a limiting factor from our observation point.

Edit: “what i accept that i'm made of with my current level of understanding is the same elementary substance of which everything in this universe, including the vacuum of space is made.”

Yes, yes, and earlier you said: “The elementary substance of which i'm made does not age”. This means neither that the current form of yours is not aging, nor that at a given spacetime it will not dissolve into quantum uncertainty.

quantum uncertainty is just an unknown from our perspective. if matter/energy dissolves or comes into contact with antimatter and is annihilated, it just returns to the elementary substance of which the universe and everything in it is composed; including matter, energy, antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, quarks, and whatever other theoretical substance you can come up with.

No. When discussing theoretical concepts that go beyond of what is known, one has to keep in mind what is original, falsifiable and verifiable and what is not.

this is not a topic that is falsifiable with our current technology or understanding. it is purely speculative.

Next thing you will tell me is that we are forced to invent a G-d and accept that this entity is real because we ignore the primal cause;

nutter fallacy.

Edit: “the units of measurement used are purely circumstantial human attempts to log the series of events that transpire around them. movement of objects happen even if there is no sentience around to quantify or record anything.”

For the movement of objects you ignore, you cannot comment
😵

i have already commented on movement of objects.

Originally posted by black beetle
You said that "the past is a recording of history, not time. the present is time unfolding and the future is a projected estimation.” I explained you in detail why your thesis does not hold
😵

you explained it, but i rejected your explanation as nonsensical. there is no time in the past or the future. time is only relevant between two or more observation points as movement unfolds.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
only from our perspective. this is not a limiting factor for time, it's a limiting factor from our observation point.

Edit: “what i accept that i'm made of with my current level of understanding is the same elementary substance of which everything in this universe, including the vacuum of space is made.”

Yes, yes, and earlier you said: “Th ...[text shortened]... ou ignore, you cannot comment
😵

i have already commented on movement of objects.

Edit: “only from our perspective. this is not a limiting factor for time, it's a limiting factor from our observation point.”

Time cannot exist without us because we invented this concept. Hence, time the way you define it, is always associated with matter/ energy.


Edit: “quantum uncertainty is just an unknown from our perspective. if matter/energy dissolves or comes into contact with antimatter and is annihilated, it just returns to the elementary substance of which the universe and everything in it is composed; including matter, energy, antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, quarks, and whatever other theoretical substance you can come up with.”

You misunderstand or misuse the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; and with the terms “time” and “singularity” you do the same thing. I use terms well defined in Physics and Math and you reply with metaphysical speculations. Kindly please let me know the sources from whom you picked up the definitions you use at this thread as regards the terms “time”, singularity” and “quantum uncertainty”.


Edit: “this is not a topic that is falsifiable with our current technology or understanding. it is purely speculative.”

Understanding and implementing the concept of Time is a huge falsifiable philosophical and scientific field. Start with Plato and Aristotle and see for yourself how our knowledge and the way we exploit the concept of Time expanded through time;


Edit: “nutter fallacy.”

I told you earlier we cannot go beyond the singularity and you replied: “if there was no movement within the singularity then we would have to go beyond it to define a theoretical object that triggered the big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond”. Leaving aside the fact that you misunderstand and misuse the term “singularity”, my answer to this thesis of yours is not nutter fallacy but the proper response;


Edit: “i have already commented on movement of objects.”

You commented as if matter/energy were irrelevant of time, telling me to check the primal definitions of Webster; clearly, time even the way you define it, is always associated with matter/ energy because motion and movement are always matter/energy dependent.


Edit: “well fear not. scientists managed to theorize about it without ending up superstitious.”

I will keep up waiting for you to let me know who are these scientists and what are their theories of reality
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you explained it, but i rejected your explanation as nonsensical. there is no time in the past or the future. time is only relevant between two or more observation points as movement unfolds.

You rejected nothing. Time is not a self-existing substratum in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur, as you appear to believe. The changing of things itself is the sole change over time. Mind you, if the events are not orthogonal, they cannot be validated. This need of ours for validation is the sole reason why we are using the abstract concept of (the non-existent) Time
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You rejected nothing. Time is not a self-existing substratum in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur, as you appear to believe. The changing of things itself is the sole change over time. Mind you, if the events are not orthogonal, they cannot be validated. This need of ours for validation is the sole reason why we are using the abstract concept of (the non-existent) Time
😵

yes i did. i'm rejecting this as well since you continue to regurgitate the same false claims despite being told otherwise. i'll just have to conclude that you are not capable of comprehending this topic. your time has run out.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes i did. i'm rejecting this as well since you continue to regurgitate the same false claims despite being told otherwise. i'll just have to conclude that you are not capable of comprehending this topic. your time has run out.

Kindly please feel free to flee in disorder😵